“I find it not only unacceptable but shocking, that a man in Mr Hemming’s position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position. Unfortunately, as other aspects of this judgment will make clear, it is not the only part of the case in which Mr Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them.”

Pretty damning stuff, and the inference that many will take from being pointed in the direction of that quote is that one would be unwise to place any credence in John Hemming’s word….’move along there folks, nothing to see here, unreliable witness’.

Perish the thought that this inference was the one which Mr Gardner intended us to take. I am sure, quite, quite, sure, that Mr Gardner only intended to pop an item of interest into his blog post for those of us who like to see both sides of the story. You would expect no less from a Queen’s Counsel who had been at the ‘heart of government’.

So our current favourite parliamentarian has been criticised by a judge? I am not sure how much weight to give that information – after all, Judges themselves go through life being criticised; they call it by the more polite terminology of ‘having their reasoning and judgement overruled by a higher court’. Lord Justice Wall, now the President of the Family Division, has been subjected to that process during his career.

What are we to make of the substance of the criticism?

“Mr. Hemming’s allegation that HJ is part of an “evil” system only warrants comment because it comes from a Member of Parliament, and thus from a person in a responsible public position whom one ought to be able to trust only to make serious accusations when they are based on evidence. I am astonished that somebody in Mr. Hemming’s position should have seen fit to put such a disgraceful allegation into the public domain. I reject it unreservedly.”

But then again, here is Lord Justice Wall himself on the same subject:

“Social workers are perceived as “arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children”.

More to the point, I wonder why so many ‘establishment’ lawyers are prepared to rush to the barricades and defend the status quo from a parliamentarian who wishes to open up a debate on the secretive and sometimes unfair system operated in the family courts.

There are several blog posts around by ambitious young barristers keen to follow Carl Gardner’s footsteps to the heart of government, nitpicking over whether the latest of Hemming’s revelations were sub judice or not, or part was sub-judice and part wasn’t; when they get bored with that they move onto whether the original case was an undertaking made under duress or an order of the court. All clever arguments, but all ignoring the heart of the matter – that the public are remarkably fed up hearing tales of their friends and neighbours having children snatched by secret courts and they wish parliament to do something about it. They want justice to be seen to be done.

One reason why Mr Hemming has managed to lodge himself in so many disdainful nostrils simultaneously is the lucrative aspect of work in the secret courts.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 dramatically enlarged the financial pie into which the ambitious young lawyer could trough. Even before the details of the proposed legislation were known, Julia Lomas, who had previously been content with having risen at a young age to the giddy governmental heights of Accountant General to the Supreme Court, jumped ship and reappeared as a partner in the firm of Irwin Mitchell, in the Court of Protection Division. A previously unglamorous department normally inhabited by the bean counters of Probate. Under her tutelage, and nothing to do with the happy coincidence of the legislation being mooted in her previous job, it was to become a phenomenally profitable area of work.

Indeed, this week, Irwin Mitchell has announced that they are to float their partnership on the stock exchange. Irwin Mitchell’s revenues last year amounted to £157 million. That will thrill the hearts of those whose personal injury awards are administered by the Court of Protection division of Irwin Mitchell.

The entire business of super-injunctions has become messy – the media are only interested in the footballers, the lawyers don’t want their cosy world uprooted. Perhaps John Hemming has sailed close to the wind on occasion, perhaps you can nitpick holes in his legal terminology – but thousands of ordinary British men and women are cheering him on for no other reason than they wish the debate on secret justice to be opened.

The subtext of the article seems to be: Hemming might be wrong on the details, but he’s right on the larger point that there are failings in the system.

The trouble is, if he isn’t right on the detail of the cases he chooses to raise, what is the basis for thinking that he’s right on the wider points? This is an area where details matter: cases can easily be presented in such a way as to make the outcome seem unjust, when greater knowledge of the circumstances might lead to a different conclusion.

Not at all – the sub text of the article is that you may well be able to find a roomful of lawyers prepared to argue the small print – but the FACT still remains that people were prevented from speaking to their MPs and the public are rightly outraged.

AnajinnMay 4, 2011 at 14:40

I have seen one of the court documents, which I passed to Mr. Hemming myself. He is right on the detail. Don’t worry about that. The injunction in question has been used to cover up very serious organized crime and a prominent law firm is involved.

InhaMay 3, 2011 at 21:05

I really do not understand what the injunction hype is about. it has been going on for years in the high court. It amazes me that the media can bray about it as if it has just come to their attention. How do you think the banks have been able to hid their dirty laundry and I dont mean the cloth type. Yes readers, the judges are the best people for concealing crimes committed by the rich and famous. There are certain judges who are paid a great deal to cover up crimes of the VIPs and I am not taking about the goodtime lads who dont wish to be found out, I for one would vote for their privacy as people’s sex life is their private biz. I am taking about real crimenot mugging for a mobile phone I am a victim of multimillion fraud conducted upon me by the banks solicitors and the court has given them 5 injunctions to cover it up. Yes, Mr Camroon we would like something done about the crime taking place in the courts, how can someone go to prison for mugging a phone in the street but not for mugging by institutional fraud by the Courts and Officers of the Courts. Remember, Mr Camroon the Judges are making ‘SECRECY LAWS’ NOT PRIVACY LAWS’ THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

AnajinnMay 4, 2011 at 14:52

I think the difference is that there is only one man her who can pull the sword from the stone. All the rest are too selfish, fearful, weak and, possibly, even corrupt to stand up for what is right. Maybe we had to wait a long time for a man like Mr. Hemming, because man is inherently self-serving. Mr. Hemming is obviously much more altruistic than the rest of them, and is following through on the job that the public elected him to do. I don’t know what has happened to the British ideals, but they are not apparent any more. Quite the opposite. Even the human rights organizations are merely “shop fronts”. They do nothing for the British, and are just being used by government as propaganda to point fingers at other countries for human rights violations, while the smell is getting stronger and stronger on their own doorstep. They do absolutely nothing – every single one of them. Thank goodness for the one man who is speaking out about this affront to the British people and their rights, despite John Bercow’s attempts to silence him in the House. We should be watching who it is that works against Mr. Hemming. It will tell us much.

Stan the ManMay 3, 2011 at 07:31

In my opinion Judge/s and others there to protect these corrupt system’s are bound to condemn Mr. Hemmings, simply because they do not want such Malfeasance as is taking place in The British Court System to be brought out into the Public Domain…..(And as being just one Victim of numerous victims who have suffered years of Human Rights violations deprivation, hardship, as a result of such cloaked malfeasance in Public Office; I should know,) Therefore lets hope the accusations he makes the fallout sticks to the many who have fraudulently concealed/suppressed such abuse!!…..

AnajinnMay 3, 2011 at 01:05

To Wittering Whitney: maybe the reason others have not come out in support of Mr. Hemming is as the biblical saying goes: “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.” Perhaps Mr. Hemming is the only one who can throw stones and carry the standard for truth and justice, and the rest have fallen by the wayside. That’s what it looks like to me. The less they say or do in support of him, the more corrupt they look. Anyone who picks holes in him must have something to hide.

Not quite. Eric Pickles has shared a platform with Hemming and other Conservative local councillors have been threatened with prison for daring to even listen to the complaints of people who think they’ve been dealt with wrongly by the courts. Various Lib Dems apart from Hemming have also raised issues, but it is difficult as the very nature of this is to prevent them having any information.

There are two underlying political considerations:

*There’s a profound legal and moral problem. Essentially, it was a Conservative government enacting socialist philosophy which changed the status of childhood from the situation which has stood for recorded human history, where children are uniquely the special property of their families, to individual citizens in relation to the state. There was public pressure for this following a couple of hideous child abuse cases. However, it is by no means clear that this is in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, which was set up to try to prevent the state doing that very thing of reducing the family to a state-approved hatchery.

* These cases, whether public law or private law, are exceptionally difficult and there is almost no solving them. That is what the entire structure of the social services and family courts are supposed to be doing. An MP who involves themselves is likely to find themselves shot by all sides; the constituent if the MP doesn’t agree with everything they say, the social workers (who may also be their constituents) for interferring, and the courts shrieking about their constitutional independence although they’ve spent decades usurping the authority of parliament and interpretting in, via judicial activism, things which were never intended by any parliament.

It’s a brave MP who dares stand up on this matter.

AnajinnMay 4, 2011 at 15:48

If the other MPs do not speak out, and if they cannot beside John Hemming as one solid wall, then they should not be in the job. As they are still uncovering details of MPs who committed fraud, maybe many of them are keeping their heads down because they are fearful of drawing attention to themselves? Just a suggestion.

Most of them refuse to do any constituency work, let alone stick their necks out for justice. Be careful who you vote for. Some of them should be ousted as useless.

With regard to journalists, at least Andrew Marr has spoken out. However, in my opinion, if you do something you are ashamed of, you should be prepared to accept the consequences and the responsibility of what it may do to your children. Not to worry, however, as there are always social workers, totally devoid of conscience and working on quotas, who are more than willing to snatch the children if they are being harmed. The courts will oblige and the local councils can collect fat fees.

It appears that Mr. Blair is responsible for the arrangements with local councils to pay them by the child for forced adoptions. Lawmakers should be decommissioning this arrangement, as it has invited serious abuse. There is no sense in just talking about it. Lawmakers should change it, and they shouldn’t leave one man to do it all by himself. What gives here?

Everyone knows that monopolies invite corruption. Most of the press is controlled by Rupert Murdoch and family, who socialize with the Prime Minister and appear to spend time at 10 Downing Street.

As long as you have selfish MPs who are not interested in the public’s pain, but only themselves, then the government will continue to be dysfunctional, and nobody will do anything about it. Britain has become the laughing stock of the universe and the Foreign Office should sit down with the Home Office and the Minister of Justice, and get this sorted out. Neither the Home Office nor the Ministry of Justice hold themselves accountable to parliament or the public, when it comes to white collar crime in which legal professionals are nearly always involved. Police and the Home Office silence innocent peaceful protestors against injustice and police continue to arrest them without charge. How on earth can Britain point sanctimoniously at Middle Eastern rulers, when there is so much unrest in the UK because of corruption and inequity?

Lawmakers have to unite and treat the problem at its roots. Perhaps they have to micro-legislate in order to force the government to be accountable and to do their jobs, instead of (as they do) ignoring the public and continuing to cover up crime with injunctions and any other means at the disposal of the police, Home Office, and the Ministry of Justrice.

Facsism at its finest! Well done, Dad. this is what you fought for from 1939-45.

There is no such thing as secret justice. People’s identities may on rare occasions need to be hidden but the process should never be.

DembonesMay 2, 2011 at 19:44

Time to bring in the big guns. BBC Radio 4 Who’d be a Social Worker – “Simon Cox gets a rare insight into life for junior social workers as he follows two newly qualified workers through their first six months in one of the busiest children’s services departments in Britain” ………http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010dk29

Not a SpongerMay 2, 2011 at 19:21

Anna, old thing, are you absolutely SURE that Max is ok? It appears his site host doubts his identity for some reason. Be a sweetie and look into it will you? Thanks! xxxx

Er, Twitter. Yes, I’ve heard of that. Splendid. Going to look rather foolish now, but how do I find your feed for it? You’re talking to someone that was using a 100 year old Underwood typewriter up until 18 months ago!

Thanks, Julaim. Looks like Max needs to find himself a better host. The site’s been unobtainable before, but never to this extent and the message displayed is highly misleading (assuming old Max is being truthful, of course!)

WitteringWitneyMay 2, 2011 at 18:29

LIke JuliaM and DaveH, I too am with Hemming on this issue. Having followed closely the writing of Christopher Booker on the subject of children being taken into care by the social services it would appear that there is much amiss with and in the system.

What I do find disgusting is that few other MPs have publicly come out in support of Hemming and I wonder how many have made it their business to investigate exactly what is happening within their own constituencies.

Dave HMay 2, 2011 at 15:28

I’m on Hemming’s side in this. If the Family Courts weren’t so secretive and protective of their mistakes and attempting to silence everyone then he wouldn’t need to raise the issue.